METHODS AND MATERIALSAll trials were conducted in a heavily vegetated yard in Fort Collins, Colorado during April andMay 1987. Attractants were evaluated based on slug captures in a commercially available slugtrap (Slug Saloo#, American Quality Products, Denver, CO) that measured 9.5 cm in diameterand was covered to exclude dilution by rainfall and irrigation. Approximately 180 ml of liquidwere placed in each trap during trials, which filled the containers to within 2 cm of the containerlip. Traps were placed among vegetation, arranged in a randomized complete block design with4 replications. Individual traps were separated by a minimum 0.75 m. Traps were collected 48hours after placement, unless otherwise indicated. All data were subjected to analysis ofvariance (ANOVA). Means among the treatments were separated using the multiple range testof Duncan (1955) at P < 0.05.Attractiveness Comparison Trials of Commercial Malt Beverages. Trials were conducted torank commonly sold malt beverages for attractiveness to slugs. Treatments included 12 brandsof beer, one alcohol-free malt beverage, sugar water/baking yeast, one brand of wine, and tapwater. Comparisons were made during a series of trials involving three treatments against astandard beer (Budweisera) that was used in all trials. The ratio of slug capture in treatments2was then calculated against the (Budweiserk) standard to establish overall rankings ofattractiveness.Beer Flattening/Alcohol Fortification Trials. The effect of beer flattening and alcoholfortification on slug capture was evaluated with two beers (Budweise?, Pabst Blue Ribbo$). Inboth trials, beer was flattened by decanting into a bowl 48 hours before the initiation of the trial.To further help define the importance of the ethanol in beer to slug capture, additional treatmentswere conducted involving fortification of the baits with ethanol. Ethanol was added at the rateof 6% by volume in the form of 95% ethanol.And the results

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONA wide range in attractiveness occurred among the various malt beverages tested (Table 1). Thenon-attractiveness of alcohol, demonstrated by Smith and Boswell (1970), was emphasized inthis trial since greatest attraction occurred using the non-alcoholic malt beverage Kingbury MaltBeverageR. Among tested beers, there was a three-fold range in attractiveness with the brewerAnheiser-Busch products (Micheloba, Budweisep, and Bud LightR) attracting the greatestnumber of slugs to the traps.Several volatile components associated with beer have been identified by Selim (1976) as beingattractive to slugs including acetoin, diacetyl and dihydroxyacctone. The range in attractivenessof various malt beverages are likely due to differences in the concentrations of these attractants.For example, Meilgaard (1975) reports a three-fold range in diacetyl exist? among typical UnitedStates beers.The single wine tested (Gal10 Pink ChablisR) was not attractive to slugs, although Smith andBoswell (1970) reported that unfermented grape juice was a moderately attractive to slugs. Useof fermenting sucrose solutions to which baking yeast was added produced capture rates similarto beer. Selim (1974) had previously reported sucrose fermentation byproducts as attractive toslugs.